Petition: Right to Dictate Your Own Species

[Chomp]

I've already had somebody who isn't straight tell me that even though this might bother them personally, they agree with the artist having rights. Stop turning it into an attack on yourself b/c that's what you're doing. You have no idea who I am and what priveledges I have but I can tell you right now one of my people is being killed every 11 seconds in other countries.

I know plenty about oppression, this isn't a contest to see who is more attacked. And maybe I think your view of closed minded is closed minded. It flips both ways.

Its clear to me that there are other sites but obviously I wouldn't be holding petition here if myself and many others users didn't feel passionately about this.

They're pixels. They can't be in love in the same way you and I can. So if I want to old that imaginary love to my liking as I do other aspects of their anatomy and mentality I should be allowed that just as such as you can with your species.

[plum]

So let's get this straight - you want to make your species - a species with individuals that, i presume, have their own specific, unique personalities, wear unique accessories that the adopt 'chose for itself', talks to other characters in actual words during a rp, and do more things that indicate that they're pretty much completely personified - extremely limited in sexuality for 'breeding purposes'?? That doesn't really add up.
Also, guess what! Same gender reproduction is an actual possibility!! In example, a trans woman and a cis woman in a relationship could have a kid, but guess what - they're both women! By limiting sexualities you're basically saying that that isn't valid.
Honestly you're trying really hard to make this seem like you're angry about mods limiting your freedom with you species but in reality, it just looks like you're just being homophobic and close-minded about not being able to make your species and its individuals completely conform to your views.

[foreign-potato]

^what kiley said

You wrote a lot of stuff, Chomp, and I am not here nor do I have the time to write paragraph upon paragraph back but I will say that the excuses or examples you are using are vague and do not apply in the same level that it does to the lgbtq+ situation. Like the rule with one marriage or the rule to be active, those have actual reasoning with foundation when it comes to owning a species. One marriage=issue with breeding and family matters (on a side note, it's also usually not socially acceptable to the majority) / rule to be active = wanting your species to remain with active, loving, and non-character-hoarding members in hopes for active RP community. Now compared this with not allowing people to have gay/etc characters, you can see it's just oppressive and there is not a legitimate call. Biologically you want to argue, well mother nature is an amazing force and there is nothing stopping any animal from having relations with another of the same sex and IT HAPPENS WOOOO. There are many cases and it doesn't matter how many species are found in RL to have them, because honestly how many species are being documented for that kind of action? Out of the crapton on animals on earth, are they all being watched right now for their reproductive methods. And how many of those species are obscure like fish, bugs, or microscopic creatures? http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/d ... sexuality/ wooo homosexuality stuff lets read on it. have more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual ... in_animals

If I were, then the title would be, "Petition for the Right to Exclude Certain Users from Species".

That's what I am saying, it should be named that

Why else would this topic even exist if it isn't for the denial of lgbtq+

They are pixels, just as you said. Let others use them how they want because how is it affecting you when its on a screen and are tiny little colored lights. It's their character and not in your domain anymore other than the basic rules.

[FoxerOwl]

I agree with koiley and foreign ^^"

I don't really see why you can't just let this go? Like if you're uncomfortable with lgbtq+ characters, then stay away from them. Make your characters straight and stick to people that think the same as you. A little homophobic, but way less rude and disrespectful than excluding people from a species.

Everything that I want to say has already been said, so for now I shall go~

edit; OH and idk if someone's already said this, I've read a lot and I'm tired, but you said people can just leave if they don't like a certain rule? Sometimes people don't want to do that because they love the species so much, and want to join the community. So if your species has a rule against lgbtq+ characters, and the person doesn't like that but adores the species, it can be hard to choose. :c

So I'll just say I am against this petition for multiple reasons!

[Temperance.]

I believe people are getting up in arms about this and turning it into a LGBQT+ issue, when really that isn't the purpose of this at all. I despise how people on this site have to immediately turn everything into a battle. Chickensmoothie is becoming the next tumblr and it's incredibly stressful and toxic imo.

I don't want to get majorly into this because I don't need the anxiety, but basically given a lot of the ridiculous rules I've seen adoptables have, I believe that an artist should have every right to require relationship/sexuality rules if they so choose. Yes there are some animal species that are supposedly homosexual (which will forever make zero sense to me since I really don't think animals have sexual relationships for anything further than asserting dominance, reproducing, or maintaining peace, and are certainly not comparable to humans) but I don't see how that's a factor in this argument.

I am a bit confused though, if you explicitly state in your rules something like:


"___ can only mate with opposing genders, disobeying this rule will result in your ___ being repossessed."


Is that not capable of being enforced? Since you are then making it a rule and a species requirement?

Frankly I do understand chickensmoothie's desire to be neutral though. They are a business of sorts after all, and taking a definitive stance on these sorts of issues ultimately results in a loss of money, ergo it's unwise to take sides from a business perspective.

If chickensmoothie will not enforce these rules I would definitely advise moving to DA or some other platform where you can more strictly regulate this if it's that important to you.

The unfortunate reality is that whether you put these rules in place or not, what people do in private (ie. on Skype or elsewhere) cannot really be monitored, and if someone is dead set on creating alternate sexualities for their animal characters then they will do so.

I believe having a nursery that does not allow m/m or f/f reproduction is a good solution personally, since that way you're still keeping things biologically sound and it's better than nothing really.

TLDR;
Your species, therefore it ought to be your rules. BUT. Given that you are trying to host them on a website with a tolerance policy it is a little bit difficult/unfair to try and force these rules to be accepted, given the current atmosphere and "hot button" aspect this situation brings, which puts chickensmoothie in a difficult position. Essentially I'd recommend moving them offsite or else restricting nursery access to m/f pairs since you can't really control what people do privately anyways.

[broker]

Hey Chomp, jumping on the band wagon to say you have my full support and agreement with this petition.

Koiley@ I'll just start out with "forcing" an adoption center to close down because of their resistance to cooperate with this "rule" is not an exaggeration. From personal experience my adoption species thread, Jingles was literally locked down. The moderator responsible sent me a private message claiming that if I didn't remove my sexuality orientation rule on my species they wouldn't unlock it.

If I'm not mistaken the same thing happened to another adoption agency before a help ticket was sent in and the moderator finally unlocked them, granted still persisting with this unwritten rule.

If this has caused hurt in the past among chickensmoothie, wouldn't we as members of the same community be aware of these offended feelings? As an owner of two adoption center that previously had this rule, I never once have received a complaint from the community about this sexuality orientation. As a previous artist of jellybean dragon adopts, I once was able to decide the sexuality of the designs I put out for adoption, out of the dozens of forms I've received, I've never had a complaint from the participants. The only disagreement I've had about my actions in claiming the right to decide my virtual adoptables sexuality has come from the staff of said adoptable agency. And now from chickensmoothie moderators.

I think that's saying alot against the claim that the chickensmoothie community is "obviously" offended by this right.

I would take the time to point out other things a couple of users have mentioned, but I can't due to curfew.

And all sincerity, I'm very disappointed with the offensive behavior that is being posted on this thread, and I hope users here are able to resolve this in a more considerate and respectful matter. My best wishes.

[plum]

Just to clarify, when I put 'same sex reproduction' in my post I meant same gender, oops.
However I guess it could still apply to those who think sex and gender are the same thing.

[Chomp]

... Except that again this would give all users of all sexualities the ability to do what they want with their species. Why shouldn't someone be comfortable with what is theirs? Also I like how the community which is supposed to be supportive of others is flinging insults and passive agressiveness.

And the chapter belongs to the artist as much as they want. If they want to hold full rights except to say, roleplay with them, they technically can. The rule itself exists as a denial of artists rights. Plain and simple. And this just isn't abouy what does and doesn't occur in nature. But the majority of animals breed to pass on genes and it has to be with the opposite sex - most species here are closer to animals than humans.

[Caelus]

this gives homophobes an excuse to shelter their homophobia under cs's own rules. i do not like this petition.

ahem. first of all, homophobia is already rampant on cs. ALL saying youre against gay marriage does is start fights and breed hate, and this would be no different. for me, it would be the last straw for this site. a rule that gives homophobes sanctuary from being reported is no rule that i will support. as a bi person i see no reason why magical talking wolves with intelligence on par with humans should not have varied sexualities other than lgbtqa people making the creator uncomfortable and personally that is not my concern. not to mention how obviously exclusionary this is.

TL;DR this would only cause more fights and drama and is very hurtful and exclusionary.

[mawsoleum]

Although many chickensmoothie species are animal-like in appearance, most have an intelligence similar or equal to a human's. The "most animals are straight!" argument can be debunked by this, with this kind of intelligence they'd probably have more of an idea of romance etc, and not just be bound to mating for the sole purpose of having children.
As for breeding itself, as cirque-arachne said, two females can have a child, just as two males can. It's incredibly cissexist to believe that only a biological female and biological male can have children. And, again, if these animals have the intelligence to do other human-like things, they can certainly determine their own gender.

All in all, it's very limiting to want to close off all sexualities just because they make the artist uncomfortable or the artist doesn't want it. You're leaving out a huge group of people who would like representation, even in something like a chickensmoothie species. This rule would just promote homophobia and cissexism, and would likely make a good portion of the userbase unhappy. I can't see any way this is beneficial, except for an artist to get away with passive aggressively displaying their homophobia.